Thomas Aquinas Commentary Hebrews 9:15-22

"And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made it. For a testament is of force where there hath been death: for it doth never avail while he that made it liveth. Wherefore even the first [covenant] hath not been dedicated without blood. For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses unto all the people according to the law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded to you-ward. Moreover the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry he sprinkled in like manner with the blood. And according to the law, I may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission." — Hebrews 9:15-22 (ASV)

Having explained events in the Old Testament and revealed their mystical meaning, the Apostle now uses these facts to prove his thesis: namely, that the New Testament is superior to the Old because it can do what the Old could not. In this regard, he does two things: first, he states the intended conclusion; and second, he proves something he had presupposed. The first point is divided into two parts: he first concludes from the preceding points that Christ is a mediator, and second, that the Old Testament could not accomplish this (verse 15b).

He says, Therefore—that is, because Christ entered the holy places after having obtained eternal redemption, which means He leads us to eternal things that the Old Covenant could not provide. It was fitting that this covenant be distinct from the former, as the new is from the old: I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31); Behold, I make all things new (Revelation 21:5). Therefore, He is the mediator of a new covenant between God and man: The mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5).

In every testament, something is promised, and something else confirms that testament. In the New Testament, heavenly and spiritual things are promised. Furthermore, that promise was confirmed by the death of Christ. And so, Christ is the mediator of the New Testament so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance.

He says they are called because this reward is not for our works but comes from God’s call: Whom he predestinated, them he also called (Romans 8:30); We testified to everyone of you that you could walk worthy of God who has called you unto his kingdom and glory (1 Thessalonians 2:12). Thus, he speaks of the eternal inheritance, which is eternal glory and is our inheritance: He has regenerated us unto a living hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that cannot fade, reserved in heaven for you (1 Peter 1:3); Behold the inheritance of the Lord (Psalms 126:3); The Lord is the portion of my inheritance (Psalms 15:5). We receive that inheritance through the death of Christ; hence, the author says it comes since a death has occurred: Unto this you are called, that you may inherit a blessing (1 Peter 3:9). The effect of this death is redemption from the transgressions committed under the first covenant: You were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver, but with the precious blood of an unspotted lamb (1 Peter 1:18).

But could that redemption from sins have been accomplished in the Old Testament? The author answers no, because those transgressions were under the first covenant. It is as if to say that they could not be removed by the power of the sacraments of the former covenant: Because we have charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin (Romans 3:19).

But is it not a fact that David and many other saints obtained remission for their sins? I answer that as for entering heaven, they did not, because the door to life was opened only by the death of Christ. No one entered heaven before Christ’s death: You also by the blood of your testament have sent forth your prisoners out of the pit, wherein is not water (Zechariah 9:11). However, as for the stain of sin, they did obtain remission, not by the power of the sacraments of the Old Law, but by faith in Christ. Therefore, the New Testament is more excellent than the Old because it has been confirmed by the death of Christ, through which sins are remitted and the promise is fulfilled.

Then (in verse 16), he proves what he had presupposed—namely, that the New Testament was confirmed by the death of Christ. He proves this first from the authority of human law, and second, from the authority of divine law (in verse 18).

He argues that the New Testament was confirmed by the intervening death of Christ because, for a will (or testament) to be in force, the death of the testator must be established. The New Testament would have no strength unless the death of Christ had occurred: It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people (John 11:50).

The testator's death is necessary for two reasons. First, it makes the testament valid. Since a will expresses a person's final wishes, it can always be changed before death. Therefore, as the author says, a testament takes effect only at death. This is how the New Testament has been confirmed by the death of Christ: this is my blood of the new testament (Matthew 26:28), which confirms and dedicates it.

Second, the testator's death is necessary for the testament to be effective and enforceable. As the author notes, it has no force while the one who made it is alive, because no one, not even an heir, can claim an inheritance based on the testament until after the testator's death. Therefore, Christ willed to offer His death for our sake.

Next (in verse 18), he proves the same point from the authority of divine law, using an example from the Old Testament. In this, he does two things: first, he shows the agreement between the two covenants, and second, their difference (in verse 23). Regarding the first point, he again does two things: first, he makes a statement, and second, he proves it (in verse 19).

He says, therefore, that it has been stated that for a testament to have force, the death of the testator must necessarily occur. This should not seem strange, because the first covenant was not ratified—that is, confirmed—without blood. That blood prefigured the blood of Christ: All these things happened to them as symbolic representations (1 Corinthians 10:11).

Then (in verse 19), he proves his statement that the first covenant was not confirmed without blood. He demonstrates this with regard to three instances where blood was used:

1. In the presentation of the Law.
2. In the consecration of the tabernacle (verse 21).
3. In the purification of the vessels (verse 22).

Regarding the first point, it should be noted that the Apostle alludes to the historical account in Exodus 24. After Moses had read God’s commandments to the people and they had answered, All things that the Lord has spoken we will do, we will be obedient (Exodus 24:7), he took the blood of the twelve calves, which he had ordered them to save, and sprinkled the book of the Law and the people, as if to confirm the covenant. Hence, the author of Hebrews says that when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people—a necessary reading, as it was the promulgation of the Law—he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people.

Two objections arise here. First, Exodus 24 makes no mention of a goat, only of twelve calves. Second, no mention is made there of water, scarlet wool, or hyssop. There are two answers to these objections. One is that the Apostle had been brought up in the Law and therefore knew the customs for cleansing, namely, that sprinkling involved the blood of goats and calves, water mixed with hyssop, and scarlet wool as the sprinkler. Therefore, even though not all of these are mentioned in Exodus, the Apostle was familiar with the customs of the legal rites.

Alternatively, it can be said that this was the first consecration and that it virtually contained the other sanctifications that were to follow. The most important of these were the one on the Day of Atonement, described in Exodus 16, and the one concerning the red cow in Numbers 19. In the first of these, the blood of a goat and a calf was used; in the second, water, purple wool, and hyssop were used. Therefore, because that first consecration contained the elements of these two, the Apostle related all of them to it.

The author continues, saying that Moses took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and the people, saying, This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you. This means God confirmed the covenant: Moses commanded a law in the precepts of justice . That blood was a figure of Christ’s blood, by which the New Testament was confirmed. This is why Christ used these words in Matthew 26:28: This is my blood of the new testament.

The symbolism is as follows: the blood of a goat was used because of its likeness to sinful flesh, and that of a calf because of its courage. It is mixed with water because baptism derives its efficacy from the blood of Christ. It is sprinkled with hyssop, which cleanses the chest and signifies faith (By faith purifying their hearts, Acts 15:9), and with purple wool, which is red to signify charity (My beloved is white and ruddy, Song of Solomon 5:10). The people are cleansed by the faith and love of Christ. The book of the Law is sprinkled because the passion of Christ fulfilled the Law: It is finished (John 19:30); I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17).

Then, when the author says, the tabernacle also and all the vessels used in worship, in the same way he sprinkled with blood, he describes the consecration of the tabernacle. An objection arises: because the tabernacle had not yet been constructed at that time, the command to consecrate it was not given until Exodus 25. I answer that although the people were not sprinkled with the same blood as the tabernacle, the tabernacle was nevertheless sprinkled with blood. Hence, it can be understood to mean that Moses used blood when he sanctified the tabernacle at a later time.

But it says in Exodus 7 and Leviticus 8 that he anointed the tabernacle with oil. I answer that the author of Hebrews is not speaking of the initial consecration, but of the annual one that occurred on the Day of Atonement. Or, it might be better to say that even in the first consecration he used blood, because the text says he anointed it with oil and later sprinkled it with blood. Both are necessary for sanctification: the power of Christ’s blood and the oil of mercy, by which the tabernacle (that is, the Church) and the vessels (that is, the saints) are sanctified.

Then (in verse 22), he continues by discussing other cleansings in the Law. Cleansings were of two kinds: one for physical defilement, such as leprosy, and the other for spiritual defilement, namely sin. The first kind could apply to inanimate objects, such as leprosy in houses. The cleansing from that uncleanness was done with the blood of a sacrificed animal or with the water of expiation, which was mixed with the blood of a red calf. This is why the author says almost all things, and not absolutely all.

The word almost could modify the verb, meaning things "are almost cleansed," because they were not completely cleansed; this was accomplished only by a sacrament of the New Law. Or, almost could modify "all things," because not all things were cleansed with blood. For it says in Numbers 31, whatever can endure fire is purged by fire, whatever cannot, is purged by the water of expiation. For cleansing from the stain of sin, however, the shedding of blood is necessary because it was required for the sacrifice. Hence, the author says, without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

This showed that the forgiveness of sin was to be accomplished by the blood of Christ. Therefore, in the Old Law, sins were forgiven not by the power of a sacrament, but by the power of faith in Christ. This is why it is frequently stated, The priest shall pray for him and for his sin, and it shall be forgiven him (Leviticus 5:10).